Whether New York tribes exercise 'concurrent' jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill

QUESTIONS PRESENTED City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005) prohibits New York tribes from unilaterally asserting sovereignty—‘“in whole or in part’—over fee lands recently purchased in openmarket purchases from non-Indians, even though the lands are located within the tribe’s historic reservation. Equitable principles sounding in laches, acquiescence and impossibility bar assertions of tribal sovereignty 200 years after the tribe was last in possession of the lands—because to do so would disrupt settled expectations measured in generations. Under Sherrill’s laches formulation, state and local governments continue to exercise plenary taxing and regulatory jurisdiction over the fee lands unless and until the federal government takes the lands into trust. Questions presented: 1. In view of Sherrill, whether New York tribes exercise “concurrent” jurisdiction over fee lands within the plenary taxing and regulatory authority of the state and local governments, thereby enabling those tribes to engage in gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), and cause the same or greater disruptions of settled expectations condemned by this Court in Sherrill. 2. Whether fee lands under plenary state and local taxation and regulation (per Sherrill) constitute “Indian lands” under IGRA because those lands are located within the Cayugas’ historic reservation. il 3. Whether the Cayuga Nation’s ancient reservation was disestablished.* *This Court previously granted petitions for certiorari that presented the question “Whether the Oneida historic reservation in New York was disestablished or diminished?” Madison Cty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 562 U.S. 960, Docket No. 10-72, October 12, 2010; and “Whether the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek, which required the New York Oneidas to permanently abandon their lands in New York, resulted in the disestablishment of the Oneidas’ alleged New York reservation?” Sherrill, Docket No. 03-855, 542 U.S. 936, June 28, 2004. In neither case did this Court reach the issue. The present question concerning the Cayugas’ ancient reservation warrants review even more so because the Cayugas, unlike the Oneidas, sold all of their lands and removed from central New York, altogether abandoning their claims to the land.